Jatin Khetrapal @ Ashu v. Ganjan Devi

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 244/2016 and CM 9248/2016 JATIN KHETRAPAL @ ASHU ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra and Mr. Amit Sanduja, Advocates versus GUNJAN DEVI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

O R D E R

% 15.02.2018 The matter is taken up today as 14.02.2018 was declared a holiday.

The petition challenges the order dated 09.11.2015 of the Additional Rent Controller passed on the file of eviction case (E.no.11/12) instituted by the respondent against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide need invoking Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the procedure wherein is governed and controlled by the provision contained in Section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner concededly filed an application for leave to defend which is still pending before the Additional Rent Controller. After such application had come on record, an application came to be moved by the petitioner seeking to place on record some additional documents. It is the said prayer which has been repelled by the CM(M) 244/2016

Additional Rent Controller by the impugned order, upon it being resisted by the respondent, reference being made by the Additional Rent Controller to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through its LRs. (2010) 2 SCC 15 and of a learned single judge of this court in Madhu Gupta Vs. Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd., 184 (2011) DLT 103.

At the hearing, the petitioners rely on Punjab Stainless Stell House & Anr. Vs. Sangeeta Kedia, 2014 (145) DRJ 250, another ruling of a learned single Judge of this court which carved out some exception to the general rule against additional affidavit or documents to be permitted to be brought on record beyond the period of 15 days statutorily prescribed for the respondent / tenant to submit his application for leave to defend.

After some hearing, the learned counsel on both sides fairly agree that since the issue has not been considered by the Additional Rent Controller in light of the ruling in Punjab Stainless Stell House (supra), the impugned order may be set aside and the matter remitted to the trial court for further consideration. Ordered accordingly. The petition and the application filed therewith are disposed of with these observations.

R.K.GAUBA, J FEBRUARY 15, 2018 yg CM(M) 244/2016